W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > October to December 2012

Re: WGLC review of p1-messaging (editorial stuff)

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Sun, 04 Nov 2012 16:28:06 +0100
Message-ID: <50968986.4040507@gmx.de>
To: Dan Winship <dan.winship@gmail.com>
CC: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 2012-11-03 23:53, Dan Winship wrote:
> On 11/03/2012 10:39 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
>>> Removing the word "hypertext" from the last line would make this a
>>> more accurate description of present-day HTTP.
>
>> The "H" in HTTP stands for "Hypertext". As such I'd prefer to keep this,
>
> Sure, but "it's not just for hypertext any more".
>
>>>> 2.7.3. http and https URI Normalization and Comparison
>>>
>>>>      Likewise, an empty path component is equivalent to an absolute
>>>>      path of "/", so the normal form is to provide a path of "/"
>>>>      instead.
>>>
>>> Except that an empty path is not equivalent to a path of "/" in an
>>> OPTIONS request sent to a proxy...
>>
>> That's the "authority-form", right? That's not an HTTP(s) URI anyway.
>
> No, not authority-form. 5.3 says:
>
>>     For example, the request
>>
>>       OPTIONS http://www.example.org:8001 HTTP/1.1
>>
>>     would be forwarded by the final proxy as
>>
>>       OPTIONS * HTTP/1.1
>>       Host: www.example.org:8001
>
> but "OPTIONS http://www.example.org:8001/ HTTP/1.1" would be forwarded
> as "OPTIONS / HTTP/1.1". So the empty-path and "/"-path forms are not
> equivalent in this one case.
>
> (although now that you mention it, using authority-form here instead of
> absolute-form-minus-"/" would have made a lot more sense...)

OK; added as <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/397>.

>>>> A.2. Changes from RFC 2616
>>>
>>> We probably want to double-check these sections against the issue
>>> tracker before final publication, but one particular thing that stuck
>>> out to me as missing is the addition of the CONNECT rule and removal
>>
>> You mean the inclusion of CONNECT? We already mention that in P2. Should
>> we mention here as well?
>>
>>> of the multipart/byteranges rule from Section 3.3.3.
>
> Sorry, both parts of that sentence were referring to Section 3.3.3; the
> rule about CONNECT responses in 3.3.3 is new since 2616.

I see. Fixed with 
<http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/changeset/1973>.

Best regards, Julian
Received on Sunday, 4 November 2012 15:28:34 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 4 November 2012 15:28:38 GMT